It's called art. It doesn't extend to airbrushing what you're equating here. It's artistic interpretation, which you can argue is biased but beauty is actually in the eye of the beholder in these examples. I appreciate the love, but this is older than pin-up art. This is Art History, and only a fraction. Airbrushing a photo is a hollow shell compared to posing, creating, designing an illustration by hand from inception.

This reminds me of the Norman Rockwell exhibit at the Brooklyn Museum displaying the photos he took in order to create his masterpieces.

www.thelevisgirl.tumblr.com

I love the pinups, but I do think it equates to modern-day airbrushing when in every single picture the legs are thinner, the feet are smaller and the boobs are bigger.

This isn't airbrushing, the pinups you refer to are paintings, not photographs. Every artist through history presents their own viewpoint. Do you think the Venus de Milo didn't have a zit or random hair out of place?

I disagree entirely, for a few of the same reasons other people have. Paintings are not the same as airbrushing a photograph. The paintings are not pretending to be the real representations of the women photographed as they are paintings of a photograph, but entirely different.

I think it's important to note that although the artist's interpretation of the photograph did change, the proportions still stayed fairly the same. Yeah, there's some change, but it seems that it is meant to fit the painting and the photograph was taken so the artist had a basic outline to work with.

Airbrushing on the other hand is often done for advertising and is presented as a real photograph, when in fact there was much work done.

To also chime in with a few others, these are not "pin-ups", but paintings. I can see where you would get confused.

Love the Elvgrens.